The water in the ocean has much salt, however... Also. in the grocery store; the water is only on one side of the bottle, and there's not enough of it to make strong currents.
You've made it clear that you're either a woman or a "flamer" (your words).
No, those aren't my words. Again you've taken them out of context and assigned your own meaning to them. Which is not acceptable. (Just FYI, though: "flamer" refers to a type of behavior, not a sexual orientation. YOU just committed an act of sexual stereotyping that many people would find offensive.)
"I think this is just a pathetic macho reaction because you don't have the spine to admit you can be bested by a woman."
Your interpretation of those words is of no interest to me. The actual words I wrote were a comment about you, not about me. YOU interpreted them as a claim I am female. But I am only responsible for my words. I am not responsible for YOUR skewed interpretation of them.
I don't give a damn if you THINK I lied, or whether you have convinced yourself of that because of the way YOU have interpreted my statements. But it is not acceptable to publicly claim I am a liar when you haven't managed to demonstrate even one lie.
Shame on you." [Someone to Jane, 2012-09-09]
She didn't say...
Ah. This mysterious "someone" again. Are you sure that wasn't YOU, masquerading as AC again, this time pretending to be female? You seem to place a lot of importance on "her" words. How do you know this person was female? Was it because you wanted this comment to appear to be from a female? Under the circumstances, it's not an unreasonable guess.
If "she" appeared to be female because it was actually you pretending to be female, then you are "guilty" of doing exactly those things you have accused me of doing, which would make you a hypocrite.
But, and this bears repeating (which I have done endlessly here): "she" was stating an opinion about my discussing an issue of my state law, which I had in fact researched prior to that time, and knew pretty well. She was "pissed off" because she was wrong and I was right. So "her" words were out of context, too, AND... her words sure seem awfully similar to your own.
She didn't say you're reinforcing sexist female stereotypes because you agree with a female psychologist. She noted that you're completely irrational and can't keep a single thought straight in your head.
Since THAT conversation (parent) wasn't about females at all, much less female psychologists, it seems rather bizarre of her to bring up sexism, don't you think? Unless she had some kind of obsession about the subject in relation to me. And I repeat: she was wrong. She had failed to support her point. She was wrong. She didn't have a single shred of evidence for claiming I was wrong. And she got angry and insulted me over that... exactly like you have done so many times. I would be interested to see what IP address THAT comment came from.
Here's another example:
...
First you claim I should hope I haven't made a mistake, then just two days later you claim I should hope I have made a mistake?
Sigh. That isn't what I wrote. I will ask you again to stop distorting my words in public. I wrote: "if it turns out that you have made a mistake, you could be creating all kinds of trouble for yourself." And I did write "You should hope I'm not."
So... what does one logically have to do with the other? You really seem to lack even basic logic skills, which is pretty bizarre for someone who presents himself is a scientists. So let's go over this, shall we?
If you made false public claims about somebody -- anybody -- and you were wrong, you could be causing yourself a lot of trouble. This statement is obviously true, because we have laws against things like libel, harassment, and so on. Just for example.
Now... follow along, if you can keep up, because you certainly haven
[D] It appears, from what you stated earlier, that you have attempted repeatedly to destroy my anonymity on Slashdot (which I have obviously intended to maintain, for reasons of my own) by linking my pseudonym with some other name. It also appears, from statements you have made, that you your attempts to ruin that anonymity and link the two names were made for the purpose of vengeance against imagined slights. All of which could also be construed as harm.
and
[E] Well... never mind. This one's the doozy, as they say. I'll reserve it for later.
So we're clear, you just claimed to be a woman. Right?
Reply to This Share
That isn't what I wrote. Why do you continue to insist on distorting my clear words? My comment was about what I suspect to be your motive -- or one of your motives anyway -- for what seems to be unhealthy obsessive behavior. I didn't mention myself at all.
So... I notice that it is many hours later now, and you still don't have an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists had committed "fraud". Or anyone claiming such, for that matter.
Well, here's what our little exchange says to me so far. It appears to me that:
[A] You have a habit of quoting comments made by other people out of context, and distorting or make false claims about those comments, apparently based on personal, unfounded and apparently delusional assumptions about the writer's meaning. (Example: claiming that I am blurting "sexist stereotypes" by mentioning a book about American society written by a female PhD psychologist. And further claims of making "sexist stereotypes" by criticizing a few women who committ antisocial acts. And further yet publicly claiming repeatedly that I am a "pathological liar" when you haven't in fact been able to point out a single lie.)
[B] You have an obsession with me that is beyond the bounds of normality, which has led you to harass me for years, and to quote me disproportionately, out of context in the manner described in [A], a great many times. Which has led me to tell you repeatedly that your behavior is not normal, is not appreciated (understatement) and is likely to do harm. But then of course I suspect that harm is exactly what you intend.
[C] You are unable to back up these claims you make about other people with actual facts or even examples.
It is convenient for me that you made sure these things all appear in one easy-to-find place.
Also, a wild thought crossed my mind a little while ago. I admit it could be completely wrong. But it would explain a lot of things.
I think you are so obsessed with proving I am somebody else because you are incapable of accepting the idea of a woman being better than you at something.
You are the one who has been making accusations here. So: can you come up with an example of ME, Jane Q. Public, "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud", or not? Come on. You don't have an example, do you?
Leave you in peace so you can keep baselessly accusing scientists of fraud, while you're a man dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet?
This changes things.
Pardon me? Leaving aside whether I am a man or a woman (which is literally NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, you have no legitimate reason to know), are you accusing me of "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud"?
If so, would you care to back that up? So far you're about 0 for 100, so I doubt there is much chance of that. But I am curious where and when you imagine this happened.
I think this exchange, and the time you are taking to dig up all these comments I've made over the years, is sufficient evidence of your creepy obsession. And I don't have to be either male or female to call it creepy, because it just plain is. It's weird, bizarre, abnormal, and apparently obsessive behavior. And if I were you I'd talk to a doctor or somebody about it.
For posterity, let's all remember here, folks: I haven't been harassing this guy. It has all about HIS obsession with ME, and HIS incessant harassment of ME. And he's been doing it for YEARS.
I don't harass him. In fact I don't care about him at all. I would have preferred he just leave me in peace (which I have told him, many times).
So when you claimed that most people who bothered to look have referred to you as a gal, you weren't claiming to be a woman instead of a man named Lonny Eachus?
I told you I was done answering your harassing questions, and I am. I am reading them, because I'm keeping records, but I do not intend to answer any more of them. I'm tired of your deliberately antisocial game. Talk to yourself all you like.
... Except to say one more thing, and then I am well and truly done:
In my strong opinion, this is the worst case of TROLLING I have even seen on Slashdot, in my many years participating. Not least because you have done it over a period of years.
So after you cheered for entrepreneurs with testicles and someone objected, you asked "who should be more offended than me?"
Since you seem to be so obsessed with taking my comments out of context, let's have the whole thing:
"Don't be silly. It's just an expression. If it were worth getting offended over, who should be more offended than me?"
And you might construe the other person's comment as an objection. It was really just a question.
And? So what? Who do you think should be more offended by a silly expression than me? Or do you think lots of people, or whole genders, should be "offended" by a silly expression that men and women BOTH use quite frequently?
I'm getting really tired of this horseshit. I'm done answering your stupid questions in your stupid fishing expedition.
So when you said you're not a lesbian, you said that because you're actually a man named Lonny Eachus who couldn't possibly be a lesbian?
I have no obligation to give you my reasons for saying or writing anything.
(However, will say again that I am not, in fact, a lesbian. Why not? I already said it and it's true. So what?)
You're fishing. And the more you do, the more records I'm collecting. I won't say that it's fun, and it takes up valuable time that I would really prefer to spend working, but it's something I do feel obligated to do.
I also have strong suspicions about why you're doing it. And let me say: I don't think you're being as smart as you think you are.
But then, it wouldn't be the first time for that either.
Yes, but *your* VCR/DVR is very different than a service doing this; that is the nuance that lead to the recent Aero ruling.
I don't think the service is doing it. It is allowing YOU to do it. That might seem like nitpicking but it's actually a pretty big difference.
If cable companies and the RIAA could not legally stop people from doing it, how could Dish stop people from doing it? Would they be breaking the law?
I don't know. There are a lot of nuances here, and though I have been a Dish customer before, I'm not right now so I don't know much about how this particular thing works.
So now you're denying that you ever claimed to be a woman. Are you lying, or have you already forgotten all the links above? Haven't you noticed your pseudonym? It's supposed to tell everyone you're not a dude like Lonny Eachus. This isn't a game of 20 questions. It's just one question, repeated 20 times or more if necessary.
I affirm or deny nothing. You said I (since you are claiming that person and I are the same) am a "pathological liar". As they say in the Westerns: "Them's fightin' words." I am asking you again: what is your basis for making this statement? All we've seen so far have been rants involving what appeared to be assumptions on your part about what I meant when I wrote certain things, and not very reasonable assumptions at that. It pretty much resembled what psychologists call "the mind reading trick": you refused to accept my words at face value, and instead presumed to know that I meant something other than what my actual words said.
You haven't shown us anything that indicates I told a lie. Not one. You have failed to demonstrate that I am a liar at all, much less a "pathological" liar.
And a pseudonym is a pseudonym. People know what they are. My pseudonym isn't a "claim" of anything, either. You are free to infer whatever you like, but depending on what those inferences are, you may not necessarily be legally allowed to spout them in public.
It's supposed to tell everyone you're not a dude like Lonny Eachus.
Is he or she a dude? My dictionary says: "a man excessively concerned with his clothes, grooming, and manners." Well. I can safely say that *I* am not a dude. I guess it's up to you to decide whether someone else is.
And since I chose that pseudonym for my own reasons, I -- only I and anyone else I might have specifically told -- know what those reasons are. Is this another attempt to read my mind? I haven't told you and I do not intend to tell you, so you do not know what my pseudonym is "supposed to" do.
This isn't a game of 20 questions.
I rather think it is, or something very much like one, since you were asking me who I was not. I am even less inclined to engage in a game of 7+ billion questions. Regardless of what specific game you think you're playing, from here it looks like a fishing expedition. I'm not biting.
Are you Lonny Eachus?
I have already answered: none of your damned business.
Yes, I do have one more thing to say to you, but that's all.
You haven't demonstrated even ONE "lie". Not a single one.
I think it's even more hilarious that you don't understand that *if* I did happen to be the person you claim I am, I would likely have a very good libel case against you by now.
If you aren't Lonny Eachus, and are in fact a woman who isn't a man named Lonny Eachus, then you shouldn't have a problem saying that. After all, it's not like you're a pathological liar, right?
YES, I certainly DO have a perfectly legitimate reason to not say what my identity is, which I have REPEATED FOR YEARS to anybody here on Slashdot who asked:
My REASON is to protect my identity from people who try stalk and harass, much like what YOU appear to be be doing.
The Court's 5-4 ruling... in favor of Sony hinged on the possibility that the technology in question had significant non-infringing uses, and that the plaintiffs were unable to prove otherwise.
The majority opinion:
[There must be] a balance between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective - not merely symbolic - protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses...
Nothing about an "analog hole" anywhere in there. And tablets are clearly capable of non-infringing uses.
Indeed, devices already exist (such as Slingbox) that allow you to view content from your DVR from not just outside the home, but from anywhere on Earth that has a decent internet connection. And so far nobody has tried to say they are anything but perfectly legal.
Where do you see me saying anything like that? Where are the words I wrote? Where is this "lie" you claim I have stated? And more to the point, why do you care enough to publicly harass me about it? I have already shown that the reasons you gave above were either fabrications or misunderstandings... and I don't care which. That's your problem, and it is only MY problem to the extent that you have been MAKING it so.
I neither affirm or deny. You've had your go at that before, and I have responded to it as much as I care to respond. The end.
I have no idea why you are obsessed about this, because nobody else gives a damn, including me. The only reason I care about it at all is because you have continued to HARASS me about it, and it's far past time you stopped.
Do you know what the word "harass" means? Because you seem to have trouble understanding a lot of other words in this exchange.
I am reduced to repeating these points which you just don't seem to get:
Your lame attempts to deflect attention away from your pathological lies must seem pathetic even to you. I don't need to justify [A] debunking your public civilization-paralyzing misinformation. In fact, considering the stakes, I'd have to justify ignoring it. I can't.
I am reduced to repeating what I have said before, because you just don't seem to get it. I don't know where your failure to understand is, but that it exists is blatantly obvious.
The first thing I have to say is, where are these "lies" you accuse me of? I don't see any. I have certainly stated my opinion often enough. But lies? Where? POINT OUT AN ACTUAL LIE. Anywhere. You haven't done so. Explain where I have "lied" about my gender. My actual words. We're waiting, because you haven't shown any "lies" anywhere.
Second, you don't know what a sock-puppet account is? Really? You keep accusing me of that, but it's simply false. (And I am sick and goddamned tired of your false claims about me.) I do not use sock-puppet accounts. But YOU have, and even admitted it. If you don't understand that (and apparently you still don't, for some reason that escapes me), then ask somebody what a sock puppet is, or look it up.
Using a pseudonym, however (and my Slashdot name is obviously a pseudonym, it would have been ridiculous to deny it! I chose it precisely because it IS obvious) is perfectly acceptable behavior, and many (my guess is MOST) people on Slashdot do that. Hell, you do it yourself. So get it straight: I don't sock-puppet. But I have VERY strong evidence that you have. Evidence that I am confident would convince a court. (Not that sock-puppeting is illegal, in itself. I do not make that claim. Just that the evidence is strong.)
How funny that you're still speculating about illegal behavior, after I told you that I'm just debunking your public comments while you've quoted from illegally obtained private emails. In fact, you've even argued that up-skirt panty shots should be legal because they happen in public:
I don't care what you told me. Your opinion about it is irrelevant.
while you've quoted from illegally obtained private emails
Hahaha! You're talking about the "ClimateGate" emails? Hahahaha. If I somehow committed a wrong by quoting things other people said from information that by then had become public information, then have at it. This is just more hilarity. It hasn't even been demonstrated that they were obtained illegally. And by the time I saw any of the contents (in blog posts and news sources), they had already been made public. So any wrongdoing on my part is solely in your own mind.
And that's another things you seem to have a hard time grasping: your opinion does not change the law.
In fact, you've even argued that up-skirt panty shots should be legal because they happen in public:
Yet another falsehood you try to distort to suit your purposes. I was discussing whether it WAS legal, and principles of the law. That has nothing to do with sexism. The very same argument applies EQUALLY to males and females. The fact that it was females who were already under discussion is irrelevant to the basic point I was making. And your opinion doesn't change that. This is the same crap you have tried to do to me again, and again, and again: misinterpret my statements (perhaps deliberately?) assign your "interpreted" meaning to my statements, then publicly claim that your "interpretations" is fact. All evidence says you just don't get it, because despite my warnings you have kept doing it. The real issue here is that you have been trying very hard to make that a problem for ME, and that's over the limit.
If Lonny Eachus complained that up-skirt panty shots need to be legal because otherwise women can control your behavior and deci
Do they have the right to retransmit but not to stream or 'sideload' recorded stuff to mobile devices? I don't get it, those two statements appear to be contradictory at frist glance.
The Supreme Court Betmax decision. Users obviously have the right to use VCRs and DVRs to "time shift" content. There's no law saying you can't take your DVR with you wherever you go.
In this case, your tablet is just acting like a DVR. I see nothing new at all here, even considering the recent (bad) SCOTUS decision.
Slashdot Mirror
The water in the ocean has much salt, however... Also. in the grocery store; the water is only on one side of the bottle, and there's not enough of it to make strong currents.
Ah... but in the ocean, there IS.
I do see, however, that you managed to yank the conversation back to your obsession.
I am still waiting for an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists committed "fraud".
I don't think you have one of those, either. Which is just more evidence that I have been right, all along.
You've made it clear that you're either a woman or a "flamer" (your words).
No, those aren't my words. Again you've taken them out of context and assigned your own meaning to them. Which is not acceptable. (Just FYI, though: "flamer" refers to a type of behavior, not a sexual orientation. YOU just committed an act of sexual stereotyping that many people would find offensive.)
"I think this is just a pathetic macho reaction because you don't have the spine to admit you can be bested by a woman."
Your interpretation of those words is of no interest to me. The actual words I wrote were a comment about you, not about me. YOU interpreted them as a claim I am female. But I am only responsible for my words. I am not responsible for YOUR skewed interpretation of them.
I don't give a damn if you THINK I lied, or whether you have convinced yourself of that because of the way YOU have interpreted my statements. But it is not acceptable to publicly claim I am a liar when you haven't managed to demonstrate even one lie.
Shame on you." [Someone to Jane, 2012-09-09]
She didn't say...
Ah. This mysterious "someone" again. Are you sure that wasn't YOU, masquerading as AC again, this time pretending to be female? You seem to place a lot of importance on "her" words. How do you know this person was female? Was it because you wanted this comment to appear to be from a female? Under the circumstances, it's not an unreasonable guess.
If "she" appeared to be female because it was actually you pretending to be female, then you are "guilty" of doing exactly those things you have accused me of doing, which would make you a hypocrite.
But, and this bears repeating (which I have done endlessly here): "she" was stating an opinion about my discussing an issue of my state law, which I had in fact researched prior to that time, and knew pretty well. She was "pissed off" because she was wrong and I was right. So "her" words were out of context, too, AND... her words sure seem awfully similar to your own.
She didn't say you're reinforcing sexist female stereotypes because you agree with a female psychologist. She noted that you're completely irrational and can't keep a single thought straight in your head.
Since THAT conversation (parent) wasn't about females at all, much less female psychologists, it seems rather bizarre of her to bring up sexism, don't you think? Unless she had some kind of obsession about the subject in relation to me. And I repeat: she was wrong. She had failed to support her point. She was wrong. She didn't have a single shred of evidence for claiming I was wrong. And she got angry and insulted me over that... exactly like you have done so many times. I would be interested to see what IP address THAT comment came from.
Here's another example:
...
First you claim I should hope I haven't made a mistake, then just two days later you claim I should hope I have made a mistake?
Sigh. That isn't what I wrote. I will ask you again to stop distorting my words in public. I wrote: "if it turns out that you have made a mistake, you could be creating all kinds of trouble for yourself." And I did write "You should hope I'm not."
So... what does one logically have to do with the other? You really seem to lack even basic logic skills, which is pretty bizarre for someone who presents himself is a scientists. So let's go over this, shall we?
If you made false public claims about somebody -- anybody -- and you were wrong, you could be causing yourself a lot of trouble. This statement is obviously true, because we have laws against things like libel, harassment, and so on. Just for example.
Now... follow along, if you can keep up, because you certainly haven
And I almost forgot:
[D] It appears, from what you stated earlier, that you have attempted repeatedly to destroy my anonymity on Slashdot (which I have obviously intended to maintain, for reasons of my own) by linking my pseudonym with some other name. It also appears, from statements you have made, that you your attempts to ruin that anonymity and link the two names were made for the purpose of vengeance against imagined slights. All of which could also be construed as harm.
and
[E] Well... never mind. This one's the doozy, as they say. I'll reserve it for later.
So we're clear, you just claimed to be a woman. Right? Reply to This Share
That isn't what I wrote. Why do you continue to insist on distorting my clear words? My comment was about what I suspect to be your motive -- or one of your motives anyway -- for what seems to be unhealthy obsessive behavior. I didn't mention myself at all.
So... I notice that it is many hours later now, and you still don't have an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists had committed "fraud". Or anyone claiming such, for that matter.
Well, here's what our little exchange says to me so far. It appears to me that:
[A] You have a habit of quoting comments made by other people out of context, and distorting or make false claims about those comments, apparently based on personal, unfounded and apparently delusional assumptions about the writer's meaning. (Example: claiming that I am blurting "sexist stereotypes" by mentioning a book about American society written by a female PhD psychologist. And further claims of making "sexist stereotypes" by criticizing a few women who committ antisocial acts. And further yet publicly claiming repeatedly that I am a "pathological liar" when you haven't in fact been able to point out a single lie.)
[B] You have an obsession with me that is beyond the bounds of normality, which has led you to harass me for years, and to quote me disproportionately, out of context in the manner described in [A], a great many times. Which has led me to tell you repeatedly that your behavior is not normal, is not appreciated (understatement) and is likely to do harm. But then of course I suspect that harm is exactly what you intend.
[C] You are unable to back up these claims you make about other people with actual facts or even examples.
It is convenient for me that you made sure these things all appear in one easy-to-find place.
Also, a wild thought crossed my mind a little while ago. I admit it could be completely wrong. But it would explain a lot of things.
I think you are so obsessed with proving I am somebody else because you are incapable of accepting the idea of a woman being better than you at something.
You are the one who has been making accusations here. So: can you come up with an example of ME, Jane Q. Public, "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud", or not? Come on. You don't have an example, do you?
Unless you can, I will have no choice but to consider your accusation "baseless".
Leave you in peace so you can keep baselessly accusing scientists of fraud, while you're a man dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet?
This changes things.
Pardon me? Leaving aside whether I am a man or a woman (which is literally NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, you have no legitimate reason to know), are you accusing me of "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud"?
If so, would you care to back that up? So far you're about 0 for 100, so I doubt there is much chance of that. But I am curious where and when you imagine this happened.
I will, however, make one more comment:
I think this exchange, and the time you are taking to dig up all these comments I've made over the years, is sufficient evidence of your creepy obsession. And I don't have to be either male or female to call it creepy, because it just plain is. It's weird, bizarre, abnormal, and apparently obsessive behavior. And if I were you I'd talk to a doctor or somebody about it.
For posterity, let's all remember here, folks: I haven't been harassing this guy. It has all about HIS obsession with ME, and HIS incessant harassment of ME. And he's been doing it for YEARS.
I don't harass him. In fact I don't care about him at all. I would have preferred he just leave me in peace (which I have told him, many times).
So when you claimed that most people who bothered to look have referred to you as a gal, you weren't claiming to be a woman instead of a man named Lonny Eachus?
I told you I was done answering your harassing questions, and I am. I am reading them, because I'm keeping records, but I do not intend to answer any more of them. I'm tired of your deliberately antisocial game. Talk to yourself all you like.
... Except to say one more thing, and then I am well and truly done:
In my strong opinion, this is the worst case of TROLLING I have even seen on Slashdot, in my many years participating. Not least because you have done it over a period of years.
And you know what they say about trolls.
So after you cheered for entrepreneurs with testicles and someone objected, you asked "who should be more offended than me?"
Since you seem to be so obsessed with taking my comments out of context, let's have the whole thing:
"Don't be silly. It's just an expression. If it were worth getting offended over, who should be more offended than me?"
And you might construe the other person's comment as an objection. It was really just a question.
And? So what? Who do you think should be more offended by a silly expression than me? Or do you think lots of people, or whole genders, should be "offended" by a silly expression that men and women BOTH use quite frequently?
I'm getting really tired of this horseshit. I'm done answering your stupid questions in your stupid fishing expedition.
So when you said you're not a lesbian, you said that because you're actually a man named Lonny Eachus who couldn't possibly be a lesbian?
I have no obligation to give you my reasons for saying or writing anything.
(However, will say again that I am not, in fact, a lesbian. Why not? I already said it and it's true. So what?)
You're fishing. And the more you do, the more records I'm collecting. I won't say that it's fun, and it takes up valuable time that I would really prefer to spend working, but it's something I do feel obligated to do.
I also have strong suspicions about why you're doing it. And let me say: I don't think you're being as smart as you think you are.
But then, it wouldn't be the first time for that either.
Yes, but *your* VCR/DVR is very different than a service doing this; that is the nuance that lead to the recent Aero ruling.
I don't think the service is doing it. It is allowing YOU to do it. That might seem like nitpicking but it's actually a pretty big difference.
If cable companies and the RIAA could not legally stop people from doing it, how could Dish stop people from doing it? Would they be breaking the law?
I don't know. There are a lot of nuances here, and though I have been a Dish customer before, I'm not right now so I don't know much about how this particular thing works.
So now you're denying that you ever claimed to be a woman. Are you lying, or have you already forgotten all the links above? Haven't you noticed your pseudonym? It's supposed to tell everyone you're not a dude like Lonny Eachus. This isn't a game of 20 questions. It's just one question, repeated 20 times or more if necessary.
I affirm or deny nothing. You said I (since you are claiming that person and I are the same) am a "pathological liar". As they say in the Westerns: "Them's fightin' words." I am asking you again: what is your basis for making this statement? All we've seen so far have been rants involving what appeared to be assumptions on your part about what I meant when I wrote certain things, and not very reasonable assumptions at that. It pretty much resembled what psychologists call "the mind reading trick": you refused to accept my words at face value, and instead presumed to know that I meant something other than what my actual words said.
You haven't shown us anything that indicates I told a lie. Not one. You have failed to demonstrate that I am a liar at all, much less a "pathological" liar.
And a pseudonym is a pseudonym. People know what they are. My pseudonym isn't a "claim" of anything, either. You are free to infer whatever you like, but depending on what those inferences are, you may not necessarily be legally allowed to spout them in public.
It's supposed to tell everyone you're not a dude like Lonny Eachus.
Is he or she a dude? My dictionary says: "a man excessively concerned with his clothes, grooming, and manners." Well. I can safely say that *I* am not a dude. I guess it's up to you to decide whether someone else is.
And since I chose that pseudonym for my own reasons, I -- only I and anyone else I might have specifically told -- know what those reasons are. Is this another attempt to read my mind? I haven't told you and I do not intend to tell you, so you do not know what my pseudonym is "supposed to" do.
This isn't a game of 20 questions.
I rather think it is, or something very much like one, since you were asking me who I was not. I am even less inclined to engage in a game of 7+ billion questions. Regardless of what specific game you think you're playing, from here it looks like a fishing expedition. I'm not biting.
Are you Lonny Eachus?
I have already answered: none of your damned business.
I simply asked you to confirm what you've been saying for years, that you're a woman who can't possibly be a man named Lonny Eachus
Where do you claim I stated this? Where did I say ANYTHING about who I was or wasn't?
I'm just asking you to say what your identity isn't. Should be easy, unless you're a pathological liar like Lonny Eachus.
It's none of your damned business what my identity ISN'T, either. I'm not about to engage in a game of 20 Questions with you.
(Added right after that last comment:)
Yes, I do have one more thing to say to you, but that's all.
You haven't demonstrated even ONE "lie". Not a single one.
I think it's even more hilarious that you don't understand that *if* I did happen to be the person you claim I am, I would likely have a very good libel case against you by now.
You should hope I'm not.
I have nothing more to say to you. I am tired of your outrageous behavior.
If you aren't Lonny Eachus, and are in fact a woman who isn't a man named Lonny Eachus, then you shouldn't have a problem saying that. After all, it's not like you're a pathological liar, right?
YES, I certainly DO have a perfectly legitimate reason to not say what my identity is, which I have REPEATED FOR YEARS to anybody here on Slashdot who asked:
My REASON is to protect my identity from people who try stalk and harass, much like what YOU appear to be be doing.
The Court's 5-4 ruling ... in favor of Sony hinged on the possibility that the technology in question had significant non-infringing uses, and that the plaintiffs were unable to prove otherwise.
The majority opinion:
[There must be] a balance between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective - not merely symbolic - protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses...
Nothing about an "analog hole" anywhere in there. And tablets are clearly capable of non-infringing uses.
Indeed, devices already exist (such as Slingbox) that allow you to view content from your DVR from not just outside the home, but from anywhere on Earth that has a decent internet connection. And so far nobody has tried to say they are anything but perfectly legal.
There you go again.
Where do you see me saying anything like that? Where are the words I wrote? Where is this "lie" you claim I have stated? And more to the point, why do you care enough to publicly harass me about it? I have already shown that the reasons you gave above were either fabrications or misunderstandings... and I don't care which. That's your problem, and it is only MY problem to the extent that you have been MAKING it so.
I neither affirm or deny. You've had your go at that before, and I have responded to it as much as I care to respond. The end.
I have no idea why you are obsessed about this, because nobody else gives a damn, including me. The only reason I care about it at all is because you have continued to HARASS me about it, and it's far past time you stopped.
Do you know what the word "harass" means? Because you seem to have trouble understanding a lot of other words in this exchange.
Your lame attempts to deflect attention away from your pathological lies must seem pathetic even to you. I don't need to justify [A] debunking your public civilization-paralyzing misinformation. In fact, considering the stakes, I'd have to justify ignoring it. I can't.
I am reduced to repeating what I have said before, because you just don't seem to get it. I don't know where your failure to understand is, but that it exists is blatantly obvious.
The first thing I have to say is, where are these "lies" you accuse me of? I don't see any. I have certainly stated my opinion often enough. But lies? Where? POINT OUT AN ACTUAL LIE. Anywhere. You haven't done so. Explain where I have "lied" about my gender. My actual words. We're waiting, because you haven't shown any "lies" anywhere.
Second, you don't know what a sock-puppet account is? Really? You keep accusing me of that, but it's simply false. (And I am sick and goddamned tired of your false claims about me.) I do not use sock-puppet accounts. But YOU have, and even admitted it. If you don't understand that (and apparently you still don't, for some reason that escapes me), then ask somebody what a sock puppet is, or look it up.
Using a pseudonym, however (and my Slashdot name is obviously a pseudonym, it would have been ridiculous to deny it! I chose it precisely because it IS obvious) is perfectly acceptable behavior, and many (my guess is MOST) people on Slashdot do that. Hell, you do it yourself. So get it straight: I don't sock-puppet. But I have VERY strong evidence that you have. Evidence that I am confident would convince a court. (Not that sock-puppeting is illegal, in itself. I do not make that claim. Just that the evidence is strong.)
How funny that you're still speculating about illegal behavior, after I told you that I'm just debunking your public comments while you've quoted from illegally obtained private emails. In fact, you've even argued that up-skirt panty shots should be legal because they happen in public:
I don't care what you told me. Your opinion about it is irrelevant.
while you've quoted from illegally obtained private emails
Hahaha! You're talking about the "ClimateGate" emails? Hahahaha. If I somehow committed a wrong by quoting things other people said from information that by then had become public information, then have at it. This is just more hilarity. It hasn't even been demonstrated that they were obtained illegally. And by the time I saw any of the contents (in blog posts and news sources), they had already been made public. So any wrongdoing on my part is solely in your own mind.
And that's another things you seem to have a hard time grasping: your opinion does not change the law.
In fact, you've even argued that up-skirt panty shots should be legal because they happen in public:
Yet another falsehood you try to distort to suit your purposes. I was discussing whether it WAS legal, and principles of the law. That has nothing to do with sexism. The very same argument applies EQUALLY to males and females. The fact that it was females who were already under discussion is irrelevant to the basic point I was making. And your opinion doesn't change that. This is the same crap you have tried to do to me again, and again, and again: misinterpret my statements (perhaps deliberately?) assign your "interpreted" meaning to my statements, then publicly claim that your "interpretations" is fact. All evidence says you just don't get it, because despite my warnings you have kept doing it. The real issue here is that you have been trying very hard to make that a problem for ME, and that's over the limit.
If Lonny Eachus complained that up-skirt panty shots need to be legal because otherwise women can control your behavior and deci
Obviously s/Betmax/Betamax
Sony v Universal Studios
Do they have the right to retransmit but not to stream or 'sideload' recorded stuff to mobile devices? I don't get it, those two statements appear to be contradictory at frist glance.
The Supreme Court Betmax decision. Users obviously have the right to use VCRs and DVRs to "time shift" content. There's no law saying you can't take your DVR with you wherever you go.
In this case, your tablet is just acting like a DVR. I see nothing new at all here, even considering the recent (bad) SCOTUS decision.